CHRISTIANITY

and the

ENQUIRINGMIND

Essays on the the compatibility of the

Bible and the findings of Science

LOUW ALBERTS

Published by CHRISTIAN PUBLISHING COMPANY

P O Box 1599, Vereeniging, 1930

Copyright 1996

Scripture taken from the New International Version of the Holy Bible

ISBN 1–86829–363–7

Copyright All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form without permissionin writing from the publisher, except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles or

reviews.

DEDICATED TO MY DEDICATED FAMILY

CONTENTS

Foreword

1. Everybody is a Believer

2. Science

3. The Bible

4. Scientists

5. The Origin of the Universe

6. The Birth of the Earth

7. Life on Planet Earth

8. Genesis and the Advent of Man

9. Einstein’s Dilemma

Sources for further reading

FOREWORD

In this series of essays a number of topics are dealt with that surface on occasion in lecturerooms, in discussion groups, in and outside the church gathering and often in the home, where

the modern young person can baffle the older parent with questions that are sometimeshonest, and at other times mere smoke screens in order to hide a variety of more deep seatedproblems.

An effort is made throughout to maintain a level of presentation, particularly in the areasof science1 that will be understood by the intelligent layman, but at the same time provideinteresting reading to the scientist and the theologian. There are a large number of booksavailable to the reader who has a science and/or theological background. Such books arenormally written from the writer in question’s own particular view of life and total reality.This author felt that there is no need for adding yet another book at this level.

There are millions of John Citizens whose lives and thinking are affected every day by theresults of science and technology, as well as through the Christian faith. Such impactsobviously vary from person to person. The challenge was to attempt a contribution to theirsearch for answers in a manner that is understandable but, scientifically speaking, alsoreliable.

The essential aim is to ease the unnecessary tension and polarization that can arisebetween an honest scientific approach and a Bible based Christian faith. Christians should beenabled to make judgments, in the area of faith and science, that are based on knowledge andinsight rather than on ignorance and prejudice. Scientists must learn to accept that thescientific method holds no intrinsic guarantees that it can lead to ultimate truth. Because of hisscience background, this writer resisted the temptation to state his own personal frame ofreference right at the outset. It is left to the reader to discover this along the way.

A list of books mentioned in the various essays, as well as texts for further reading, ispresented at the end with a brief factual comment on each. Beyond that, the format of writingavoids substantiating statements with a vast number of text references. Only in those caseswhere direct reference or quotations are made, acknowledgement is given in the form offootnotes.

A word of sincere thanks is due to Mrs M.A. Engelbrecht for typing the manuscript and tothe Council for Geoscience for the provision of office accommodation and library services.

—Louw Alberts—

ONE

EVERYBODY IS

1 Unless otherwise stated, the term science will always refer to natural sciences as distinctfrom the humanities.

A BELIEVERNow faith is being … certain of what we do not see. (Hebrews 11:1)

The above title may sound strange to some readers and even annoying to a few. It actuallyrefers to all sane, normal people regardless of their standards of education, religion (or lackthereof ), background, age, wealth (or lack thereof), intelligence and walk of life. No one liveswithout some measure of faith in their personal make-up.

Let us illustrate this statement by considering what is called a world view. The latter termsimply means the way one regards the total physical cosmos with its myriads of galaxies,stars, planets and moons. Your world view contains some kind of answer to questions such as:Where did it all come from? Why is it here?

The universe as observed by the eye, telescope and inferences from other physicaldetection methods, contains some one hundred billion (1 billion equals a 1 000 millions)galaxies, a galaxy being a community of stars. Our sun, a medium sized star, is a member ofsuch a galaxy which is known to most of us as the Milky Way. The latter consists ofapproximately one hundred billion stars. Our sun holds a family of nine planets, moving innearly circular orbits around it. Earth, a very exceptional planet from the point of view ofbeing able to support highly developed biological life, is the third planet away from the sun.The presently known universe is approximately ten to twenty billion lightyears in diameter.We use a lightyear as a unit of length. It represents the distance a light beam would travel invacuum in one year. With a speed of 300 000 kilometres a second this comes toapproximately ten million million kilometres.

Let us now consider one of the questions raised earlier: How did this physical universe,including our planet and life on it, come into existence? Three lines of answers are possible.

• It all happened by chance. However small the chance may be is beside the point. Aninfinite number of universes may have started up spontaneously and amongst them this oneoccurred and here we are in it. Or alternatively, there is only this one universe and by chanceit turns out the way it is, down to the last detail, including men and microbes.

• Let us stick with what we can observe and experience. We cannot and do not knowanything beyond that. Therefore there can be no conclusive answer to the question: Where didit all come from?

• It was all purposefully designed by a pre-existent Being whom we call God. Pre-existencesimply implies God was already there when it all started up and His origin does not, and neednot be part of the answer.

The above three approaches broadly represent atheism, agnosticism and monotheism asembodied in the Christian faith, Judaism and Islam. Clearly there will be shades of differencesand variations between the above three approaches. The important point to recognize is thatall three views start off with an initial step of sheer belief that cannot be proved or disproved.The starting point of an atheist is no more or less scientific than that of a Christian.

Another way of viewing the situation is to employ the concept of metaphysical theories asfor instance used by the famous philosopher, Sir Karl Popper. Metaphysics in this contextmust be seen as a branch of human enquiry that is not, or cannot be based on empirical orexperimental observations. Such theories cannot be proved or disproved by scientificinvestigation. The alternative views that the universe was created by God, or the universecame into being by chance, would then both fall in the category of metaphysics. This principlewould be applicable to all thinking concerned with the beginning of the universe. No one canprove or ultimately disprove, in an exact scientific sense, that our total observable reality isthe result of unpurposed chance, and no one can really prove or disprove the existence ofGod. In every instance it is a matter of belief.

It is interesting to note how science writers of great repute who do not ostensiblyacknowledge belief in a personal creator, wittingly or unwittingly reveal a type of religious orfaith bias in their thinking. Scientists who do acknowledge faith in a personal God will not beconsidered at this point. They will be viewed in the next essay.

In the early eighties a group of scientists of the British Museum of Natural History, byway of a public display, advocated a technique for the classification of biological species,called cladism. The details of this particular systematic approach need not concern us at thispoint. The system, however, does put a question mark on the validity of, or necessity forDarwinism, the latter being, to date, the most widely accepted model by evolutionists in orderto explain the origin of species. The then editor of Nature1, a very reputable science journal oflong standing, responded in an extended editorial with expressions such as: “The trouble withagnosticism (with respect to Darwinism) is that, however justified logically, it can be carriedtoo far”, and “whatever the philosophical position, there is no way of denying that people’semotions are engaged by the strengths and weaknesses of theories.”

One cannot help but detect a rather strong measure of religious fervour, in favour ofDarwinism, in the foregoing statements. In an earlier editorial of the same journal the attackon cladists came right down to the level of witchhunting. Please note there was no hint ofreligious bias in the views of the scientists expounding the cladistic approach. It was simplycoolheaded science.

Paul Davies, in his book God and the New Physics, writes as follows concerning theorigin of life: “Even if further work suggests that a natural origin of life would imply afantastic accident, those who believe in an infinite universe, containing an infinity of planets,need have no fear of statistics. In an infinite universe, anything that is possible must happensomewhere by pure chance.” (italics by this author) On comparing this statement with the firstverse in the Bible, viz: In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, it is prettyevident that the expressed faith in an entity called chance, is no less a matter of belief thanthat of a person who assigns the origins to the God that the Bible speaks about.

In the light of the foregoing it is quite fair to reduce the so-called faith vs. science debateto a faith vs. faith debate. The atheist may come up with the argument that as sciencedevelops, his leaps of faith are reduced more and more to steps of sheer reason. Thisargument, however, does not necessarily hold water. As our body of knowledge of the realworld grows, the faith leaps of the atheist often have to become bigger. For instance, whenOparin envisaged in 1924 that the first living cell was born spontaneously in a pond of

1 Nature,Volume 290, 12 March 1981

organic soup, it was difficult enough to believe in terms of what was then known about cells.In the light of what science has since uncovered, such as the information embodied in theDNA molecule, the necessary leap of faith becomes impossibly great.

Francis Crick, who received the Nobel prize for his famous work on the genetic code,makes the following dubious claim in a book entitled Life itself, its origin and nature, viz. thatmost modern scientists do not subscribe to any of the doctrines attributed to Moses, JesusChrist or Muhammad. Crick states further that a scientist has an almost boundless optimismconcerning his ability to forge a wholly new set of beliefs, solidly based on both theory andexperiment. It is doubtful whether many scientists share Crick’s enthusiasm and confidence inthe scientific method, but his attitude and approach are certainly based on a pretty dynamicfaith in the so-called scientific method. In this connection it is worth noting another remark bythe eminent science writer, Paul Davies, in a review of a book written by Polkinghorne. Thelatter is a well-known British scientist who openly confesses to being a Christian, and in factbecame a clergyman in his church. “The belief that there is something behind it all issomething that I personally share with, I suspect, a majority of physicists.” Paul Daviesfurther expresses a very similar thought in the closing paragraph of his book The Mind ofGod.

Another Nobel prizewinner, Steven Weinberg, concludes at the end of his brilliant bookThe First Three Minutes: “The more the universe seems comprehensible the more it alsoseems pointless. But if there is no solace in the fruits of our research there is at least someconsolation in the research itself. Men and women are not content to comfort themselves withtales of gods and giants, or to confine their thoughts to the daily affairs of life; they also buildtelescopes and satellites and accelerators, and sit at their desks for endless hours working outthe meaning of the data they gather. The effort to understand the universe is one of the veryfew things that lifts human life a little above the level of force and gives it some of the graceof tragedy.” So much for the conclusions of a leading scientist who believes it all justhappened by itself.

These examples of the foundations on which scientists base their faith demonstrate thefollowing principle: For an atheist to scoff at a Christian because of a so-called non-intellectual (ie. a believer’s) approach to the origin of the cosmos, would reveal nothing butabsurd ignorance. The atheist exercises a capacity for credulous acceptance that even exceedsthat of many a Christian. No one has the right to regard the other’s initial stance of faith asintellectually superior or inferior. We can all afford to be careful in our assessments.Furthermore, the sooner a scientist admits to himself that the initial step of faith in his worldview results in a built in subjective bias to the way he sees and practises science, the morehope he has of being reasonably self-critical and in the process reaching out towardsobjectivity. Philosophers such as Herman Dooyeweerd and Michael Polanyi, havesuccessfully demonstrated that all acquired knowledge has a subjective component in its verycharacter. It goes without saying that in the case of the human sciences such as psychologyand sociology this is even far more evident than in the case of the natural sciences. The latterhave the advantage of easier experimental control which can help to eliminate errors arisingfrom subjective inputs.

Two concluding remarks. Firstly, if any authority in education decides to completelyeliminate the so-called religious approach in the teaching of cosmology and biology, such anauthority is, perhaps unwittingly, opting for the atheistic or agnostic approach. After all,education in science is not only concerned with the “how” of natural phenomena but also with

the “where from” and the “where to”. One just cannot avoid the first steps of belief in yourview of the world and life. Neutrality here is a myth. To eliminate one view is to supportanother.

Secondly, the various initial stances of faith illustrated in the foregoing, come about inmany ways. In most cases it can be traced back to environment and training. There are,however, millions of cases where conversion has taken place from one stream to another.Once one has accepted the reality that the initial step is an act of faith, the questionimmediately arises: What next? Turning to our main sources of information that are available,viz. science and the Bible, will lead to answers.

Secondly, the various initial stances of faith illustrated in the foregoing, come about inmany ways. In most cases it can be traced back to environment and training. There are,however, millions of cases where conversion has taken place from one stream to another.Once one has accepted the reality that the initial step is an act of faith, the questionimmediately arises: What next? Turning to our main sources of information that are available,viz. science and the Bible, will lead to answers.

TWO

SCIENCE

In the English culture, the term science normally refers to the natural sciences such asphysics, chemistry, geology, zoology, astronomy, etc. In many European cultures the termscience embraces all branches of knowledge. For instance, the German word wissenschaftrefers to all sciences in general and subdivision occurs by adding a prefix such as natur(nature) and geisten (of the spirit ie. humanities). In this essay the English custom will befollowed and unless specifically stated otherwise, the term science will be used only to implythe natural sciences.

What is science really all about? What are its essential aims? Why do so many talentedpeople across the world devote their energies to this branch of human knowledge? Why aresocieties and their governments prepared to spend billions of money units annually in thepursuit of scientific knowledge? The answer, perhaps curiously enough, is to be found outsidethe realm of science.

In the Bible, particularly in a passage such as the eighth Psalm, it is spelt out that man is tobe the employer and guardian of nature and its gifts. If God is responsible for the presence ofman on earth it is almost obvious that it is inherent in the very makeup of man to want tounderstand nature. This understanding is not only for its own sake, but also in order toultimately control nature’s resources. This is the essential driving force behind our scientificenterprise. For instance, nuclear energy could not be employed for better or for worse, beforea certain amount of knowledge and understanding of the atom had been gleaned throughinvestigation. The reading of nature leads to the control of nature.

A tribal native of the jungle studying the feeding and drinking habits of antelopes in orderto hunt them successfully, is obeying the same general principle as a physicist researching

electrical super conductors in order to make optimum use of our energy resources andelectrical circuitry in general. In both cases the gifts of nature are probed in order to captureand utilize, even though the two illustrations occur at vastly different levels of sophistication.

The purists would claim that they are doing research simply for the very sake of theunderstanding of and insight into the way nature operates. Such scientists could besubjectively completely honest as individuals, but that does not invalidate the overall principleas applicable to the human race. In this process the very research and understanding ofcreation have become an inherent and beautiful part of human civilization. The mereunderstanding of the genetic code or the origin of the universe, is culturally as important asthe ability to appreciate the paintings of Rembrandt, the plays of Shakespeare or thesymphonies of Beethoven. Somehow our educational systems have not inculcated this truth toa sufficient degree in our youth. At the same time, the theologians should have spelt out themessage that if man is to be the ruler over nature, this dominion carries with it, the awesomeresponsibility of caring for nature. The ecology incentive should have been part of theChristian message throughout the centuries. Surely God does not look with favour upon rulerswho merely exploit and do not care for his handiwork.

Let us now consider the scientific method which normally runs as follows:

• The collection of data through observation.

• Sorting and systematization of the data.

• Putting up a conceptual model or theory in order to explain the available information.

• Testing the theory by subjecting it to new data or investigating predictions that emanatefrom it.

The above programme is not to be regarded as a rigid procedure but does provide thephilosophical basis for the scientific approach. In order to bring these ideas home to the nonscience reader let us consider the following illustration.

A scientist picks up a piece of solid matter hitherto unknown to man, for instance a newmineral, and he wants to find out all about it. He could heat it to see what happens, pourvarious acids on it and observe the reactions and subsequent products of the chemicalreactions, perform X-ray measurements on it etc. etc. Having collected his data he wouldgroup it in orderly fashion and eventually put up a theory which would ring as follows: Thispiece of material consists of atoms such as silicon, magnesium, iron, oxygen and others.These atoms are arranged in a certain geometrical pattern, in colonies called crystals, and thelatter make up the piece of solid material. This would be the scientist’s theory and typicalquestions could be: Will the model be able to predict the hardness and density of the material,or explain some new additional information that a laboratory assistant has just reported on?Such questions may require that the model be adjusted somewhat in order to accommodatethe new information. If it repeatedly fails to do so, scrapping of the model in favour of a newone is called for. This may not be so easy to do and the scientist could go on working with theexisting model whilst realizing its limitations. Sometimes a parallel theory would beemployed in order to accommodate the remaining data that the first theory could not handle.

An excellent case history illustrating the above situation is to be found in the theories oflight. For some two centuries light was regarded as a wave motion and this theory explainedmost of the available experimental information. Towards the end of the 19th century and inthe beginning of the 20th century, new facts emerged which could not be explained by thewave theory and an alternative model came into being, viz. the photon or particle theory oflight. More and more experimental results poured in that could only be explained by the newtheory. For many decades the two theories lived individually and happily side by side, untilthe advent of quantum electrodynamics in the second half of the 20th century, explained thatthe wave and particle theories were but two simplified aspects of a more complexphenomenon.

The scientific method leads one to the inevitable conclusion that while truth or ultimatereality may be the key objective of research, the practical objective is validity. Strictlyspeaking, the question should not be how true a given theory is, but rather how valid it is inexplaining the available data. In general, theories are not true or false but rather range fromgood to bad or weak. If it appears to be very weak and explains relatively little of the knownfacts it will eventually be discarded. If it is so successful that it explains all the available dataon the phenomenon in question it can be regarded as approaching ultimate reality or truth inan asymtotic way. This is illustrated below.

The status of a science theory

No scientist can claim that a theory has acquired the status of ultimate truth, which wouldimply that there will never be a new observation that it cannot explain. The degree of validitythat a given theory has acquired will in general depend on the complexity of the problembeing investigated, and the amount of intelligent scientific research that has been applied to it.For instance, hydrogen is the simplest chemical substance known. According to the classicalmodel, the hydrogen atom has one particle, a proton, in its nucleus and one spinning electronrevolving around the nucleus. The behaviour of such an atom is reasonably well understoodand most of the observations can be satisfactorily explained. Thus the classical theory is quitegood. Please note, not perfect, because modern atomic theory has brought adjustments to theabove picture of the hydrogen atom.

In the case of a heavy atom such as uranium, the model can at best be seen as ratherapproximate because of the complexity arising from the many nuclear particles and electronsinvolved. Once atoms become grouped into units called molecules, and molecules are

grouped to form tangible matter, the theory becomes much more difficult and ourunderstanding far more limited.

So much for inanimate matter. In the case of biological matter, it must be apparent thatwhen one deals with such a bewildering assembly of millions of atoms constituting the cell ofa biological system plus that strange, not understood component called life, that ourunderstanding is still very far from complete. Cells are the basic units constituting a livingbiological system. Such a system is called a species. Trying to explain how the variousbiological species arose is far more daunting than the vast majority of humans seem to realize.Moreover, if our research takes us billions of years back in history, with no hope of repeatingthe “experiments” that took place in nature (as was the easy case of the mineral investigationdescribed earlier) the problem becomes virtually intractable. Glibness of answer in this area ofscience indicates ignorance of the difficulties involved, or possibly superficial belief thatglosses over the myriads of unanswered questions. Categoric belief in a theory of evolutionsuch as ascribed to Darwin, without recognizing the limitations of the model as well as thefundamental difficulties of the associated problems in question, is not true to the spirit ofscience, but rather verges on quasi-religion. On the other hand, it is completely unreasonableof some Christians who expect scientists to collect information in the biological world, pastand present, but not present models attempting to explain their findings. It is in the verynature of the scientific method to do just that, otherwise science is reduced to a merepurposeless compilation of facts. The inference is that theories of evolution and the possiblemechanisms involved can be part of a legitimate and honest scientific effort. This issue is soimportant that it will be dealt with separately in another essay.

THREE

THE BIBLE

The true status of Christianity is determined by the status of a book called the Bible. Itsmessage can be summed up in three words, viz. creation, fall and redemption. This impliesthat God is responsible for the coming into being of the cosmos and everything it contains.Man, as identified by the term homo sapiens sapiens, with his spiritual, intellectual andemotional components, has a unique status on planet earth. This particular species started offwith a close personal relationship with God, and this relationship was marred by the advent ofsin. Finally God provided redemption and salvation by coming to planet earth in the person ofJesus Christ. This is in essence, what the Bible is all about.

If one considers the history of the Bible itself and its role in the history of mankind, itclearly illustrates why it is still the best seller in the 20th century and will undoubtedlycontinue to remain that way. This remarkable volume is a collection of 66 books written bysome 40 different authors over a period of approximately 1 500 years, spanning severalmillennia of human history. If one bears in mind that the handwritten copies of individualauthors’ works were very scarce, that there was little or no liaison between them at the varioustimes of writing, it becomes truly stunning to note the agreement of theme and message. Theauthors were separated by generations in time, their places of writing in many cases hundredsof kilometres apart, while their backgrounds covered a spectrum ranging from kings through

prophets to fisherman and herdsmen. The writings themselves covered a wide variety ofliterature types such as history, law, poetry, biography and personal correspondence.

The Bible is unquestionably a unique book. Its reliability, as confirmed by history andarchaeology, is dealt with in masterly fashion by Josh McDowell in his well-known bookcalled Evidence that Demands a Verdict.

However, over and above the evidence and support provided by branches of knowledgesuch as history, archaeology and literature that confirm the reliability and power of the Bible,there are two other factors that, in the mind of this writer, one has to consider.

Firstly, there is its impact on human lives. The overwhelming evidence of individuals whohave been changed for the better by the Biblical message cannot be ignored. This is not to beconfused in any way by the past and present errors and deliberately committed wrongsemanating from organised sections of religion, where institutionalised power became thedriving force and took pre-eminence over the original message.

Men and women do not become angels overnight when they embrace the Gospel of JesusChrist, but the countless numbers of alcoholics who became responsible men, prostitutes whoturned into clean living women, collapsing marriages that reverted to ideal home and familystrongholds, restless students and academics who found peace and purpose in their lives—thelist is endless—cannot be explained other than by acknowledging that the Biblical message isindeed a powerful source for the good of mankind.

Secondly, and more important, is what one could call the God factor. This can beunderstood in the following way. One does not believe in God because of, or as a result ofbelief in the Bible, but conversely the Bible can be believed because of belief in God. TheBible does not attempt to prove the existence of God. The reality of the Deity is simplyaccepted in the very first line, viz. In the beginning God created … Only occasionally is therea somewhat derogatory reference to atheism such as Psalm 14:1 which states: The fool [in aspiritual sense] says in his heart, “There is no God.”

A child raised in a Christian environment does not initially acquire an understanding andbelief in the Bible as a revelation from God. The concept of and faith in God is primary andthe acceptance of the Bible is secondary. Bible stories are told as coming from God’s book.When a missionary moves into a new field he would not start off with his first sermon,whenever and wherever that may take place, by holding up the Bible and claiming that he hascome to declare this Book and its contents to the community in question. He would ratherpoint upward and say: “I have come to tell you about God.” After faith in a personal Deity isestablished, then only acceptance of his communications can follow. A very telling exampleof this approach is provided by the Bible itself. When the apostle Paul faced a very learnedand sophisticated audience in Athens, he did not start off by referring to the religiousliterature available to him via Judaism. He commenced by telling them about the unknownGod that they worshipped, but whom they did not know.

As was pointed out in the first essay, all human beings’ initial premise in their view of lifeand the world is an act of faith. In the case where this initial step is a belief in God it thenbecomes meaningful to ascertain what form of communication He has made available to man.The Bible offers itself, without excuse or defense, as the Word of God. In evaluating thisclaim all the information gleaned from history, archeology, theology, philosophy, ethics,

literature etc. can be employed to substantiate the contents of what is commonly known asScripture. Over and above such intellectual exercise, we have to revert to the concept of God.If He is capable of bringing into being the whole of Creation then surely He is also capable ofensuring that a suitable means of communication is made available to man. To illustrate. If thequestion should cross one’s mind: How do we know that the 66 books constituting the Bibleconstitute the necessary and sufficient communication from God? When the Christian churchleaders finally decided, towards the end of the fourth century, what religious writings wouldconstitute the Bible, what guarantee does one have that they could not have made mistakes?Were all the relevant writings available? We know, for instance by inference, that Paul wrotemore than two letters to the Corinthians. It appears that David wrote more psalms than thosewhich appear in the Old Testament. The answer to the enigma is simply this. If God wasgoing to leave a suitable means of communication, then He was the final Editor. Surely theCreator of billions of galaxies is capable of engineering the circumstances that led to the Bibleas we have it today. Because God is God, the Bible is reliable.

Two questions in the context of this publication have to be briefly dealt with: If science issuch a noble enterprise as demonstrated earlier, what should one’s attitude be when thereappears to be clashes between what the Bible says and what science claims? For instance, thefirst chapters of Genesis and scientific explanations for the origins of the universe and all itcontains, including earth and life on it, if read superficially, just don’t seem to agree. Whilstthese problems will be dealt with more fully in subsequent essays, the principles involved canbe stated here.

Consider two overlapping circles.

The Two Words

The one on the left represents the Bible or, better still, the Written Word and ourunderstanding of it. The circle on the right represents the body of our understanding of thephysical universe. Let us call it the Created Word. There is a small overlapping region whereboth “Words” deal with the same phenomena, such as the origins of things. It is in this areathat the questions arise. It is here where the pseudo-problem of the so-called clash betweenthe Bible and science resides. It is interesting to note that a very large part of both Wordsdon’t overlap, but somehow people tend to focus on the potential area of conflict. Why isthere conflict? If God is the author of both Words they should be in agreement. The answer isalmost obvious. We are reading one or both Words incorrectly. Theologians have to admitthat our interpretation of what the Scriptures say is forever undergoing changes. Scientists

will also readily agree that we are not necessarily correct the first time we read the CreatedWord. (In fact if we were, we would soon be out of jobs.) Our understanding is subject toongoing evolution.

As our reading of the two Words improves we find more and more harmony in theoverlapping area. There need be no tension in our minds and hearts if we detect seemingconflict between the findings of science and our reading of the Bible. It is actually reasonableto assume that Christian theology taken from the Bible was the forerunner of the scientific erain Europe. In both the Middle East and the Far East, very fascinating incidental discoveries inboth science and mathematics were made millennia ago, but these never gave rise to ascientific establishment.

Surely the concept of a divine rational Creator bringing a cosmos into existence thatwould operate in terms of definable natural laws, would have been a great stimulus towardsthe scientific enterprise.

The second question referred to earlier can be worded as follows: If the Bible is God’scommunication to mankind, how is it possible that there are so many interpretations leading toa divided Christianity, which often exhibits bitter conflict between its various branches.Having minor differences arising from different cultural backgrounds may be acceptable, butsurely God did not intend mankind to have such a varied approach to His written Word!

Again in the context of this publication it is necessary to state the following principle: TheBible, God’s communication as such, must not be seen as the revelation of God. Christ is therevelation and the Bible is the record describing that revelation. Without Christ the wholeBiblical message would become near meaningless and empty. The magnificence of Christ’scoming into this world will be seen later when we discuss the origin of the physical universe,space and time.

The conflicts referred to above, according to this writer, stem to a large degree from thefact that regrettably, through the centuries, the emphasis was placed on the record and itsinterpretation rather than focusing on Christ, the revelation of God.

FOUR

SCIENTISTS

A typical question frequently posed to the author usually runs as follows: “How can it bethat you as a trained and practising scientist, profess a personal faith in God?” The implicationof such a question is obvious. The public at large is under the impression that scientists makeup the bigger fraction of unbelievers in those parts of the globe that have been exposed toChristianity for some time. This is simply not true. Of the many scientists that the author haspersonally met in many countries, only a small fraction were confessed atheists or agnostics.A bigger fraction are staunch believers although admittedly, there are the large middle blockwho believe in God in a general sort of way, but are not committed to Him.

Such a situation, however, is applicable to most groupings in society, be they medicaldoctors, attorneys, carpenters or typists. Scientists are simply human beings who are in needof love, who are subject to uncertainties and frustrations, and often have to seek answers andguidance outside the realm of measurement and reason. Again, like ordinary people,scientists’ beliefs are determined more by their home and cultural environments than theknowledge they have acquired in the pursuit of their fields of knowledge. Two personalexperiences substantiating this view can be mentioned here. In the sixties I was doing researchduring a sabbatical spent at a British university. A Bible study group of senior students thatmet after five in the afternoon and which I joined, revealed that the majority of those involvedwere either scientists or engineers whilst the minority came from the humanities. In the mid-sixties, attending an international conference on magnetism in Nottingham, I found myselfsitting next to an American physicist from the well-known RCA laboratories. During theconversation it turned out that he was a committed believer in Jesus Christ. When I expressedmy pleasure and surprise at finding a fellow believer he rejoined: “Do you know Dr G. fromLincoln laboratories?” I did, because the man referred to had just published an excellent bookin his own research field. The subsequent remark in our conversation indicated that Dr G. wasalso a committed believer. I felt rather pleased that within one evening I had identified twoChristians in that august gathering of 500 scientists. On passing through the hotel foyer Ioverheard a small group talking about the religious views of Faraday and Newton. I joined thegroup and one tall gentleman turned to me and asked: “Why are you interested in thisconversation?” I explained my own convictions. The tall gentleman in question turned out tobe the director of a well-known industrial research laboratory and he was a deeply committedChristian. I do not know how many more conference goers were like my new discoveries, butit is unlikely that I had come across the only ones in such a short time.

The way the public at large view scientists and their religious beliefs, can probably beassigned to two major factors. Firstly, there are the notable historical incidences of Galileo’sconfrontation with the church in the 17th century on the relative movements of the sun andthe planets, and Darwin’s publication of his famous book The Origin of Species in 1859. Thecontents of these debates are so well-known that they will not be described here. Suffice it tosay that such cases contributed disproportionately much to the overall picture of the so-calleddebate between science and religion. Secondly, it so happens that well-known popularisers ofscience such as Huxley and Carl Sagan, were hardly sympathetic to a Christian view of theworld and life.

In order to get a more balanced perspective, a brief resume of some outstanding scientists’views over the past four centuries, right up to the present day, will be presented here. Thereader can draw his or her own conclusions from this evidence. The information providedhere can be found in the list of texts given at the end.

The earlier great names in science such as Kepler, Galileo, Descarte Boyle (who describedhis own conversion in vivid terms) Pascal and others, had no problem believing in God. Theirviews on how He operated in the real world certainly differed and that in turn affected theirapproach to their investigations. Pascal for instance, is quoted to have said that God’srevelation of Himself is “in Jesus Christ without whom no communion with God is possible”.

Benjamin Franklin, the greatest name in American politics and science during the 18thcentury, listed 13 virtues for successful living. The last one reads: Imitate Jesus and Socrates.In the mind of this writer the greatest star in the firmament of science is Isaac Newton. To thisday his contributions in mathematics, mechanics, astrophysics and optics form a vital part of

our knowledge in these fields. Not only was he a firm Christian believer but he also spent thelatter part of his life studying and writing theology. Undoubtedly his belief in God as theCreator had great influence on his views and work in cosmology.

In Michael Faraday’s work we identify major contributions in the fields ofelectrochemistry, magnetism and electromagnetism. The vast modern electrical industry ofthe 20th century rests on the principles that he discovered in the 19th century. His eminencetook him to the position of President of the Royal Society of Britain. At that time it wascertainly the highest scientific honour that a person could achieve in the whole world. Thisgreat, yet gracious and humble scientist, belonged to a Christian group called theSandemanions. They were Bible believers and you could not become a member of the churchwithout confession of sin and personal faith in Christ.

James Clark Maxwell, the star theoretician of the 19th century, whose contributions inkinetic theory and especially in electricity and magnetism are still basic to our thinking inthese fields today, was a devout Christian. He is said to have known the 119th Psalm (176verses) off by heart at the age of 8. He died at the early age of 48. During his last illness hesaid to a friend: “I have looked into most philosophical systems and I have seen that none willwork without God.”

Lord Kelvin, who can rightly be called the father of thermodynamics stated: “I have manytimes in my published writings within the past fifty years expressed myself decidedly, onpurely scientific grounds, against atheistic and materialistic doctrines.” On one occasion hesaid: “If you think strongly enough, you will be forced by science to believe in God, which isthe foundation of all religions.”

One more great name in classical physics is that of Max Planck. As the father of thequantum theory he could be looked upon as the bridge from classical to modern physics. He isrecorded to have said: “There can never be any opposition between religion and science,because the one is the complement of the other.”1

There is similarly, a list of great names in the field of medicine who were true believers.For instance Lord Lister, the great surgeon, Sir James Simpson of chloroform fame who wasan enthusiastic evangelical, and many others were readily identified with the Christian faith.

What about the twentieth century? Admittedly the proportion of committed believers inscience has probably dwindled, but this is simply a reflection of the situation in Westernsociety as a whole. As most scientists come out of the Western world the overall picture onceagain does not indicate that scientists are any more or less religious than any other section ofsociety.

Two advents pertinent to the 20th century are worth mentioning here. A well-knownfigure in British medicine, Rendle Short, records2 that round about 1930 a questionnaire wasaddressed to the Fellows of the Royal Society, one of the most senior scientific bodies in theworld. Two hundred, a good number in those days, responded. The replies can be tabled in thefollowing way.

1 Refer to the book by Mott, listed at the end.2 See list at the end.

Question Positiveresponse

Negativeresponse

Indefinite

Do you credit the existence of a spiritualdomain?

121 13 66

Do you believe in survival after death? 47 41 112Are recent remarkable developments inscientific thought favourable to religiousbeliefs?

74 27 99

Does science negate the idea of a personalGod as taught by Jesus Christ?

103

(in the sense itdoes not)

6

(in the sensethat it does)

71

In their responses several scientists expressed an opinion which ran something like this:“The fact that I am a professor of chemistry does not enable me to express a more, or less,authoritative opinion on any other subject, religion, politics, and so on, than any non-scientificyet reasonably educated man or woman.”

The second advent worth mentioning is taken from a book (published in 1991) by theNobel prizewinner in physics, Sir Neville Mott. In this publication entitled Can ScientistsBelieve, a number of scientists wrote essays about their personal views on religion. Theseviews varied from evangelical to liberal theism. Interestingly, this book was reviewed by JohnPolkinghorne who is an Anglican priest, a former professor of mathematical physics andPresident of Queens College, Cambridge, UK.

In one of the essays written by John Habgood he mentioned that in the late 1980’s a newbody came into being called The Society of Ordained Scientists. This is a group who areactively involved in the Christian message, either as people who have continued as scientists,or who have gone into full-time ministry. At the time of writing there were 55 members.

It would be well beyond the scope of this essay to give an exhaustive treatise on thereligious beliefs or lack thereof, of all the great names in science. The purpose was todemonstrate that the tendency of the general public to think that scientific endeavour isincompatible with religious belief, is simply not so. Scientists are just human beings and theirresponse to the Christian message, whether positive or negative, is much the same as that ofother humans.

FIVE

THE ORIGIN OF

THE UNIVERSE

From the very beginning of modern man’s history, cosmology played a very importantrole in the various cultures. What are the stars really like? When, where and how did they

originate? Today the various conclusions are mostly regarded as mere myth, but theynevertheless do indicate how important it was to the societies concerned. To illustrate: “TheMesopotamians described the earth as a floating vessel on the waters of the deep. Above itstood a solid dome covered with the waters above, which occasionally seeped through rain.The sun, moon and stars whirled around on the inner surface of the dome. These heavenlylights were thought to be eternal deities, creators of the material elements of the universe—water, earth, sky (that is the dome), and possibly fire.” (Taken from The Fingerprint of Godby Hugh Ross. See literature list.)

With the advent of the first telescope, built by Galileo, and the theoretical modelsdeveloped by Copernicus and Kepler, our concepts of the universe have developedspectacularly over the last three centuries and today we have a vast amount of experimentaldata at our disposal, together with a rather satisfactory theory as to how it all could havehappened. Certainly as in the days of old, the modern picture plays a very significant role in20th century man’s views on the world and life.

From a scientific point of view the fundamental questions are: Was the universe alwaysthere or did it have a date of birth? If it did have a beginning in time (as measured by man)how was it born and what is its history? How is it constituted? Is it infinite or limited inextent?

With the rapid advancement of sophisticated equipment and facilities in general, most ofthe information available to us was gleaned from observations made in the twentieth century.This knowledge will be briefly reviewed and the best picture that has emerged giving answersto the questions above, will be described. Technical detail will not be dealt with in adiscussion at this level. It can readily be found in the literature list.

In the main there are two approaches. The view was held by many scientists, especially inthe second quarter of this century, that the universe has always been there ie. it is infinitelyold, infinite in extent and will go on for ever. If matter disappears into energy through nuclearprocesses in stars, new matter comes into being because, every now and again, a particle suchas a proton or neutron (protons and neutrons are particles or building blocks constituting thenuclei of atoms) is born spontaneously out of nothing. The net result is a universe in a state ofequilibrium which is the same in character everywhere. This approach was attractive topeople with an atheistic or agnostic world view simply because a universe that started upanew would be too close to the Biblical picture. Over and above the fact that material particlescannot just be born out of nothing, the main objections against the “steady state” model arosefrom radio as well as optical astronomical observations. The stream of evidence against thispicture really started off with the work of Sir Martin Ryle at Cambridge University. His radioastronomical data indicated unequivocally that the universe was not uniform. Moreover, thesteady state model would tell us that galaxies are continually dying and new ones coming intobeing.

Observations on galaxies have once again established that the existing picture fits in withthe idea that the universe had a definite beginning in time as depicted by the so-called bigbang model. This approach will now be dealt with at some length.

In the 1920’s a soviet scientist, Friedman, deduced from Einstein’s general theory ofrelativity that the universe must have had a beginning in time. It was a courageous viewbecause the great Einstein himself at first opposed Friedman’s conclusions, but eventually

conceded their validity. These ideas were also an anathema to the political philosophers inRussia in the first half of this century.

Concurrent with Friedman’s work, astronomers measuring the distance of stars from theearth and measuring their speed of movement, found that the galaxies are moving away fromus and the further they are away the faster their departure speeds. The information was puttogether in a famous publication by Edwin Hubble in 1929.1 As the reader may know, theimportance of Hubble’s work is reflected in the fact that the telescope now floating in spacearound the earth was named after him. The distances and speeds of such far away objects aredetermined by techniques based on concepts such as parallax, luminosity and wavelengthshifts in the red end of the optical spectrum. Details of the techniques can be found instandard texts and will not be dealt with here.

The situation can be pictured as follows:

The expanding universe

The length of the arrows indicates the speed with which the galaxy is receding. The furtheraway, the faster they appear to be moving.

The concept of an expanding universe became embedded in the literature and the minds ofscientists. It is necessary to mention here that one must not conclude from the picture abovethat we as observers on earth are in the centre of things. Wherever these observations aremade in the universe, the picture will always be the same. This is because our apparatus ismaking measurements of a three-dimensional expansion in a four-dimensional universe.Because this is difficult for the mind to conceive, one can think of it in the following moresimplified way.

Imagine a spherical balloon being blown up. Very tiny insects are evenly distributed overthe surface. As the balloon gets bigger, every insect will see its neighbours moving away fromit. The nearby neighbours will be moving more slowly than the ones further away. In fact, thespeed of recession will be exactly proportional to the distance away from any insect doing theobservation. The insects are living on the surface of the balloon which is a two-dimensional

1 Edwin Hubble. Proceedings of the National Acadamy of Sciences. Volume 15, 1929,pp.168–173.

world. They are observing a two-dimensional expansion of a three-dimensional balloon’sgrowth. The latter has volume and is therefore three-dimensional. Moreover, each insect willthink it is in the middle of the expansion phenomenon. The corollary is now obvious when weconsider our view of the expanding universe.

Knowing the distance of the stars and their speed of recession makes it a relatively easymatter to calculate when everything started off from the same point, and this leads to the ideaof the big bang. Some fifteen thousand million years ago the universe was compressed into apoint of practically zero size and near infinite density and temperature. Such a state is referredto as a mathematical singularity.

One must not think of an explosion taking place at a point in a wide open vacuum simplybecause there was no ordinary three-dimensional space at the beginning. Space was born atthe same time as the physical universe. It is not possible for us to imagine a situation wherethere is no space, but the balloon analogy referred to earlier can help. The insects living on thesurface of the balloon are experiencing their two-dimensional space on the surface. Nowimagine the balloon being deflated. As it grows smaller the insects’ space is diminishing untilit finally disappears (assuming we have a balloon that can diminish to near zero size). Theconverse is also true. As the balloon is blown up the two-dimensional surface world is “born”and grows larger as the volume of the balloon grows.

To return to the big bang. It took place everywhere because “everywhere” grew with thephysical universe.

In a similar fashion, one has to think of the time factor. Time, in accordance with the wellestablished theory of general relativity, was born at the same moment when the universestarted off. In other words there was no “before” the initial event. Time as we experience it,started flowing from the moment of the big bang. The schematic diagram indicates how thisflow and the accompanying events took place.

The Cosmic Timetable

The order of events can be summed up as follows:

Energy material particles stars and galaxies planets, including earth life

As our knowledge of fundamental particle physics increases, the details of what tookplace especially during the first second will change, but the broad picture will remain thesame. This picture arises from observations of the expanding universe, knowledge of thenuclei of atoms and fundamental particle physics, gleaned from experiments conducted inhuge particle accelerators in various parts of the world. It is also backed up by the vast wealthof a knowledge of physics accumulated over centuries. The question does, however, arise asto whether there is further direct observational evidence that the big bang model is a goodone. The answer to this is a resounding “yes”.

From the original theory it was expected that there would be a weak leftover energybackground, or afterglow if you wish, filling the universe. This prediction was brilliantlyconfirmed in 1965. Penzias and Wilson measured the presence of this background energy andthe result was very close to the predicted value. One outstanding problem remained. Why wasthe universe not just a uniform ball of energy and material particles? Why did it have astructure in the form of stars, galaxies and clusters of galaxies? The original measurements ofthe background energy appeared to be uniform and the puzzle remained unsolved until 1992.Observations, together with brilliant experimental and calculation procedures from the COBE(Cosmic Background Explorer) satellite established that the background radiation was indeednot uniform but cloudy, ie. it had slight variations in density. These results were confirmed byballoon borne experiments. The final conclusion is that the universe, right from birth,contained the initial structure that finally led to what we observe today. Further observationsby the Hubble telescope, travelling in space around the earth, have added more and moreconfirmatory evidence that the model is as correct as man can hope to establish.

A few further, fascinating comments are necessary.

Let us name the initial blob of energy the cosmic nucleus, and let us assume at this stagethat somehow it just got there. If we do have this starting point, how could the rest of theexpansion leading to a universe as we know it, take place? The requirements are actually soastounding that it takes us well beyond the capacity of our imaginations. If, right at the start,the universe expanded too slowly, the material particles and ultimate matter that formedwould, under mutual gravitational attraction, collapse into a very dense blob, in fact it wouldend up as a premature crunch. On the other hand, if it expanded too rapidly there would not bean opportunity for galaxies and ultimately, planets to form. The necessary balance betweentoo slow and too fast is so acute that it cannot differ by more than 1 part in 1055 (which is 1with 55 noughts following on). Just to get an idea what this means, consider the whole earthas being made up of average sized sand grains. There would be 1031 such grains. Now place1024 (a trillion trillion) earths, all made up of sand grains on a huge scale and balance itexactly. Remove one sand grain from one of the earths and you have the deviation necessarythat could disrupt the big bang’s correct procedure.

Just to stretch the reader’s imagination a little further. The well-known astrophysicistRoger Penrose, computed the odds that the present universe came into being, rather than ablack hole cosmos, to be 1 against 10( 10 ) 30 (1 with 1030 noughts after it).

There are, in nature, a number of physical constants designated by letters that are commonto all scientists world wide. Here are a few:

• e: the basic unit of electric charge associated with an electron. Electrons are the particlesmoving around the positive nuclei of atoms.

• m: the mass of the electron.

• c: velocity of light in vacuum.

• h: Planck’s constant, a very important constant associated with energy.

• G: the gravitational constant associated with the force of attraction between materialbodies.

If such constants did not have the precise values that they do possess and did not stand inrelation to one another (in size), in the way they do, then the programme that ultimately led tolife on planet earth, indicated in the sketch, could not have taken place.

There are a number of very important forces in nature whose expressions are associatedwith the constants mentioned. The following four are especially important for our topicdiscussion. They are: electromagnetic forces, gravitational forces and the so-called weak andstrong nuclear forces. In understanding the role they play, the reader is reminded that atomsconsist of an electrically positive inner nucleus which is built up of two kinds of particles ie.protons which are electrically positive, and neutrons which are electrically neutral. Thehydrogen nucleus consists of only one proton. The helium nucleus consists of 2 protons plus 2neutrons and so on. The nucleus is surrounded by electrically negative electrons which areheld in position by virtue of their orbital motions, in much the same way as the planets movearound the sun. In the normal atom there are as many electrons as protons present, andbecause their electrical charges are equal and opposite, the atom as a whole is electricallyneutral.

There are a number of books with excellent discussions, for instance God and the NewPhysics or Accidental Universe by Paul Davies, explaining in detail how necessary the precisevalue of the various forces are in order to provide a universe that will ultimately supportbiological life as we know it. To illustrate. If the strong nuclear force holding protons andneutrons together were just slightly stronger than what it actually is, protons and neutronswould have such an affinity for one another that they would clump together to form onlyheavy elements, and there would be no light elements such as hydrogen left. The latter isabsolutely essential to support life. On the other hand, if the strong nuclear force were slightlyweaker, then there would only be hydrogen in the universe and that would not do either.

If the gravitational force was too strong, stars would burn out too quickly and theirbehaviour become too eratic. For instance, our sun has just the right rate of burning and isvery steady in the emission of heat and light, which is of course vitally necessary forsustaining life on earth. Moreover, the balance of gravitational and electromagnetic forces iscrucial in determining the character and life of stars. Again the electromagnetic forces playthe most important role in the formation of molecules (where atoms come together in groupsthat have particular chemical properties) and of course, if we don’t have the right molecules,biological systems such as plants, animals and people could not come into existence.

The reader can sense that there is a vast network of factors necessary to provide thecorrect materials and energy resources in order for a planet, with all the necessary resourcessuch as earth, to come into existence. Every point in this network is determined by the valuesof the basic forces. Disturb one force even slightly in strength and the network becomes sodistorted that the well-known astrophysicist, Hoyle, who in his earlier writings certainly madeno room for a Deity, did concede that “a super intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well aswith chemistry and biology”. In his later writings he gave more realistic credence to the superintellect.

At this stage of our discussion it is necessary to be reminded that the information that wegather on planet earth indicates an expanding universe. One must bear in mind that thisinformation, carried by the light that enters our telescopes, left its point of origin a long timeago, in fact billions of years in the case of the outer edges of our known universe. Whathappened after the departure of such light signals we don’t know as yet. Is the universe stillexpanding and will it continue to do so for ever, or will the expansion come to a halt and willgravity then start pulling everything inwards so that we end up again at a point? Such an eventis referred to as the big crunch as opposed to the big bang. After the big crunch we can have abig bang again and so the cycle repeats itself. Such a situation is described as an oscillatinguniverse and in that case we, right now, happen to be observing the expansion phase of aparticular cycle. The answer to the situation depends on the total amount of matter in theuniverse. If there is enough of it, gravity will eventually take over and the big crunch can setin. If there is not enough matter, ie. below what is called the critical mass, the expansion willjust go on. The two situations are respectively described as a closed and an open universe. Atthis stage the research results concerning the mass of the universe indicate a value below thecritical mass.

From a philosophical and religious point of view the above situation is important. Anoscillating universe could be regarded as having been there forever, and therefore it had nobeginning. Suffice it to say that the speculations on such a situation are severely criticised bymany a leading scientist and, in any case, if the universe eventually does indicate oscillation,it is certain from thermodynamical reasoning that it could not go on doing so forever. Notethat the laws of thermodynamics are regarded as the best established laws in science. In fact,it would not go back to more than roughly 12 oscillations. In other words, the universe wouldstill have a definite beginning.

Finally, we have to consider the beginning itself. Where did the original somewhatmysterious blob of energy come from? We called it the cosmic nucleus, mysterious in thesense that it has virtually zero dimensions, but infinite content. There are essentially twoapproaches. Firstly, it was put there by the Creator. The fact that He is Almighty God makes itperfectly possible for Him to do so. It is meaningless to ask, if space and time came with thebig bang, where was God before the great event took place? There is no need whatever for theGod of the Bible to be confined to space and time. HE simply IS and it is perfectly reasonableto expect Him to be outside his own Creation. The second approach is to attempt to explainthe coming into existence of the cosmic nucleus in terms of the laws of physics. The famousStephen Hawking of Cambridge University, is associated particularly with this approach. Heapplied quantum mechanical theory, which has been very successful in explaining phenomenaon atomic and sub-atomic scale, to the problem of the beginning. From this approach emergedthe concept of the possibility of an infinite number of universes, and we happen to be insidethe right one for life to exist as we know it. This idea could of course, never be proved. Onehas to believe or reject it. It has to be pointed out that there is no scientific evidence that

theory which is applicable to atoms and particles constituting atoms can be applied to the verybirth of the universe. Jumping from one end of the scale to the very other end is indeed a greatleap of faith. The answer to the problem will have to remain in the realm of scientificspeculation. Laboratory research with the giant accelerators available to physics, has led toexperimental results that can take us, with fair confidence, to what happened after the first fewseconds. To explore the physics that will take scientists right up to a tiny fraction of a secondafter the being started, will require equipment so huge that pooling of all the world’sresources could not nearly afford it.

However, let us suppose for a moment that we could establish the origin of the cosmicnucleus in terms of the laws of physics. One is then immediately confronted with thechallenging question: Where did the laws come from?

A brief look at some of the laws will guide our reasoning. The law of gravity tells us thatmaterial bodies attract one another. A stone falls “downwards” to the surface of the earthbecause the stone and the earth attract one another. We only observe the movement of thestone because, the earth being so big by comparison, only moves a near infinitesimal amounttowards the stone. As the moon orbits around the earth it is held in position by the force ofgravity. If this force had to disappear suddenly the moon would fly off into space. With theaid of this law a great many natural phenomena can be explained. There has never been a casewhere the law does not apply. The popular myth that space travellers have eliminated the lawof gravity is just a myth. The myth persists because it leads to a well paying UFO industry.

A similar law accounts for the way electric charges act on one another. In the area ofenergy we have the laws of thermodynamics which govern the nature and behaviour of energyin its various forms. Are these laws autonomous? Do they exist independently of the physicaluniverse, or are they the by-products of the universe? Or, are they simply the products ofman’s reasoning in describing the universe?

It must be clear to us that the laws cannot be both the cause of the universe coming intobeing, and at the same time, the result of the universe being what it is.

If, and this would be a sheer leap of faith, the laws are there, independent of the existenceof the universe, then their origin can only be ascribed to God the Creator.

Whichever way we reason, we cannot escape the revelation penned down in the first verseof the Bible. In the beginning [of time] God created the heavens and the earth [space andmaterial objects]. The words in brackets are added simply to indicate that our present dayunderstanding of the cosmos fits in well with the first verse in the Bible.

SIX

THE BIRTH OF

THE EARTH

One of the most important photographs produced this century was one taken from a spacesatellite. It depicted the earth as a beautiful sphere, bluish-green in colour with white cloudsswirling all over it. Nothing like it was ever seen or detected before or since. Whereas all theother planets photographed thus far, show up as totally unfit for biological life there is thisgrand exception, our planet. It also brought home to us the fact that we live on an isolatedspaceship with no supplies coming in from the outside. Mankind is totally dependent for itsphysical survival, now and in the future, on planet earth and its resources. It places atremendous responsibility on the shoulders of each generation.

With a fair degree of understanding as to how the universe as a whole came into existence,it becomes very meaningful to consider the advent of a solar system surrounding a star suchas our sun. Our family of planets (nine in all) plus smaller bodies like moons and meteorites,revolve around the sun in near circles. All lie roughly in the same plane, rotating about theirown axes. This is a rather unusual configuration in space. Several basic questions presentthemselves.

• Did the sun and planets originate in the same process or separately? If the former provesto be the case then one might expect many stars with families of planets surrounding them. Inthe latter case, planet formation and subsequent capture in the gravitational field of the suncould be quite a rare event. Then there would also not be so many planets in the universe.

• As we know from scientific measurements that the earth, for instance, came into existencesome ten billion years after the big bang event and the associated birth of stars, we mayconclude that planets are made up of stuff that came from stars. Was this feed material in theform of gases or solid material particles or both?

It is an interesting exercise to study the various models of planetary formation that wereproposed over the last century, but for the purpose of this essay we will briefly describe themost recent and acceptable views.

The term supernova refers to the magnificent phenomenon of an exploding star. A hugestar having reached a certain age, undergoes a process wherein the inner core contracts toform a super heavy neutron star called a pulsar, and the outer periphery explodes, spewinghuge amounts of debris in the form of clouds of gas and dust particles. The explosion isaccompanied by a blaze of brilliant light which can easily be observed on earth. Sucheruptions occur about three times per galaxy per century.

The important conclusion is the following: A planet such as earth contains heavy elementssuch as metals ranging from iron to uranium, whereas the original material in the universe outof which the stars were formed, was essentially hydrogen and helium. Where did the heavyelements come from? The answer lies in the supernova phenomenon. Stars that are bigenough and old enough can, because of the intense gravitational compression taking placewithin them, undergo nuclear processes that give rise to the heavier elements. When theexplosion occurs, the atomic seeds for putting together a planet such as earth have alreadybeen born inside the massive star and are consequently, together with lighter elements, blownout into space, then serving as building material for the planets. The great question arises:How did the building material come together to form planets moving in a given way around asuitable star?

Consider a huge cloud of dust particles and gas originating from a supernova explosion.The cloud as a whole rotates and gradually flattens into a disc called a pre-planatory disc. Onfurther contraction the outer edges move faster and swirls or eddies develop in the cloud.Eventually the cloud breaks up into smaller clouds, all still rotating within themselves, andrevolving round the centre of the original cloud. The central portion which contained most ofthe original cloud, collapsed by gravitational force into what is now the sun. Originally it wascold, but as it became more and more compressed, nuclear reactions started up within it, heatwas generated and eventually light emitted. The other minor clouds condensed and becamethe seeds for the planets. These seeds grew as they collected more and more dust particles toeventually become our planetary system with its attendant moons, comets etc.

There are many unanswered questions arising from this “best model thus far”. Forinstance:

• How does one explain the earth’s metallic core?

• Why does the sun in the centre and the large planets at the outer edge, consist mainly oflight gases while the group of smaller ones, ie. Mercury, Mars, Venus and Earth contain theheavy elements? Normally one would expect the original cloud of gas and dust rotating aboutits centre to have a distribution of material ranging from light in the middle to heavy at theouter edges.

• The collection or accretion of dust particles by initially smaller bodies in order to grow toplanet sizes, does not account for possible vaporization on impact.

• Venus, Uranus and Pluto rotate in a direction opposite to that of the rest of the planets.Picture an observer looking from outer space onto our solar system. Looking from “above” hewill see the sun and planets rotating in an anticlockwise direction, with the exception ofVenus, Uranus, and Pluto. Similarly, all the planets will be revolving around the sun in ananticlockwise direction. So will all the satellites or moons around the planets, but again thereare a few exceptions. A very general term, such as localised turbulence, is often employed toexplain away the above questions. But, let’s face it, there is still no really satisfactoryunderstanding of the origin of the solar system. It is quite conceivable that an already existentstar entered and captured the parent cloud in its gravitational field. Whatever detailed modelultimately prevails, it is very evident that one has here an amazing interplay of gravitationaland rotational forces.

Name Sun Murcury Venus Earth Mars Jupiter Saturn Uranus Neptune PlutoRadius of thebody (in earth

radii)

109 .38 .95 1 .53 11 9 3.7 3.6 .9

Distance to thesun (in earth

distances)

.38 .72 1 1.52 5.2 9.54 19.2 30.1 39.5

Length of day(in earth days

58.8 224 1 1.03 .41 .43 .45 .65 6.4

Length of year(in earth years)

.24 .61 1 1.88 11.86 29.45 84 164.8 248.3

1 earth radius = 6378 km.

1 earth distance from the sun = 150 mill. km.

Our solar system

However, let us accept the broad outlines of the gas dust cloud model as being correct. Itis fascinatingly remarkable that out of a featureless swirling cloud of material, an orderly setof bodies such as our solar system emerged, but more so, that considering its origins and thecomplicated pattern of mutual gravitational forces, it has not only settled down into such abeautifully simple system, but has also remained so very stable over a period of some fivebillion years. This stability is demonstrated, for instance, in the strange conduct of the planetSaturn’s complex ring system. Pictures of these rings indicate that they appear as solid circlessurrounding the planet. Actually they are composed of myriads of small orbiting particles.Close-up photography has revealed an incredibly complex system of a vast multitude of rings,with spokes and other irregularities. According to our present understanding of mechanicsthey should have collapsed long ago instead of persisting for billions of years, without let-up,in their present format. To quote Paul Davies1: “It is impossible to ponder the existence ofthese rings without words such as ‘regulation’ and ‘control’ coming to mind.”

Naturally we are most interested in our home, planet earth. In order to appreciate what isinvolved, it is interesting to approach it in the following way. Let the reader assume he is adesigner who wishes to establish biological life as we know it. By using the term “biologicallife as we know it” one implies that our designer will operate in his planning and reasoningwithin the framework of natural science. We will see to what inevitable conclusions this willtake us. It would be well beyond the scope of this essay to consider all the factors involved,but for the sake of demonstration, a few of the essential ones will be looked into.

• If the designer ultimately wants biological specimens such as plants and animals, adecision has to be made as to what kind of atoms will be employed and how they will be fixedto one another. After considering the various forms of interatomic forces as they occur invarious substances such as metals and salts he/she will find that the only choice is the so-called covalent bond as displayed in carbon chemistry. So the decision will be that theelement carbon is essential for the chemistry of living things.2

• Considering the minor, but nevertheless vital role that heavier elements will also play, thedecision will be that the heavenly body serving as a home for the biological specimens mustprovide carbon and a number of other required elements. This in turn, will demand a selectionof a parent dust/gas cloud coming from a suitable supernova explosion. The latter will requirea universe, developed precisely according to a large number of very finely tuned parameters, auniverse of a certain age and a certain minimum size. Of the billion galaxies in the universe asmall fraction will be suitable to house the birthplace of the planet in question. Hence asuitable spiral galaxy such as the Milky Way, must be available and the place of settlementwithin the galaxy must be right.

• In the design of a suitable planet it would be wise to have a fair number of planets formedsimultaneously. For instance, if there is only one to start with, it is very likely to have anelliptical orbit around its star. This would result in too high and low temperature extremes asit comes closer and then recedes from the star. Having a number of planets would lead to their

1 Paul Davies in The Cosmic Blueprint. See list at the end.2 All alternatives are well discussed in a book by R.E.D. Clark. See list at the end.

mutual gravitational interactions, causing their orbits to ultimately settle in circles. This wouldresult in a steady exposure to the radiation emanating from the sun. If there are to be a numberof planets it would also be very clever to have large ones, like Jupiter and Saturn towards theoutside, in order to shield the life supporting planet from dangerous comet bombardment.

• In all the above reasoning our designer will have to make sure that the star around whichthe chosen planet will orbit must be of exactly the right kind. Not just any star will suffice. Itmust be of a given mass. A star more massive than the sun, for instance, would burn toorapidly and the heat and light coming from it will vary too much in intensity. If the star is toosmall, the life supporting planet may have to be too close to it in order to receive sufficientradiation. Coming too close will result in gravitational interactions that will slow down therotation of the planet about its own axis. The days and nights would become inordinately longas happened with Mercury and Mars. The extremes of boiling hot long days and subzero longnights would not be amenable to biological life.

However, even the best of near “steady state” stars are not steady enough. For example,the sun’s radiation has increased by some third of its value since life started up on earth.“Fortunately” this was compensated for by a concomitant change in the contents of the earth’satmosphere, brought about by the right species of life on it.

• Let us now take a brief look at what our designer has to bear in mind when it comes to thechosen planet itself. Remember we had to settle for biological life based on carbon chemistry.This requires that carbon must be freely available over the surface of the planet. Clearly thebest way would be to have carbon in the atmosphere in the form of a gas and for obviousreasons one would settle for carbondioxide, non-toxic, slightly soluble in water, but not toosoluble. Together with the requirements of oxygen, mixed with a somewhat inert gas such asnitrogen and water vapour, the chosen planet must be of just the right mass in order to have agravitational field that will hold the prescribed atmosphere. Bodies such as the moon andMars hold no atmosphere because they are too small to hold it down. Against that, Jupiter isso massive that it holds light gases such as hydrogen and methane and they are not amenableto biological life at all.

As already pointed out, the speed of rotation around its own axis must lend itself to daysand nights of the right length in order to minimise temperature differences. A further greatadvantage would be to have a massive temperature stabiliser. Of all the substances in nature,water is the best candidate for holding a lot of heat per unit mass. Hence, water oceans on theplanet would be a great positive factor. It would be just as well if the water had the peculiarproperty, different to other liquids, of being heaviest just before freezing. Ice would thus formfrom the top down, enabling the specimens living in the water to comfortably survive underthe ice caps when freezing does set in. Tilting the planet in such a way that the axis of rotationis at a small angle to the plane of revolution around the sun, would result in seasons and thus amuch larger surface area on the planet would be good for a wider variety of species. Asolution of non-poisonous salts in the oceans would support the formation of clouds; the latterproviding moisture over the land surface, as well as shielding the planet to a degree from thesun’s radiation, thus providing further levelling off of the temperature. Setting up thechemistry of the oceans in such a way that poisonous salts are not present is a formidable task,but with very astute chemical engineering it can be done.

Providing the planet with a relatively large satellite such as the moon, will guarantee thatthere is a lot of vitally necessary movement of the coastal waters in order to cleanse andreplenish the necessary nutrients for life in the sea.

In conclusion. One could go on for a long time, listing many more characteristicspertaining to a life supporting planet. These factors are well discussed in literature, and booksby writers such as R.E.D. Clark and Hugh Ross provide ample information. The latter authorhas calculated that the statistical chances of finding even one more planet such as the earth inall of the known universe is omissibly small. Man’s home is a very unique place.

The unavoidable question that arises is the following: If one cannot escape the reality ofdesign and a designer whom we call God, then why did He go to such an immeasurably greatdeal of trouble to put together such a vast universe in order to provide one tiny sphere, calledearth, on which man can live? Surely there must be other worlds with life on them? Is it notsupremely arrogant to assume we are the only intelligent biological species in existence?What about all the stories of spaceships and aliens landing on planet earth? This author has adecided view on this. These stories are just stories that sell well, be it in book or film format.If there are such intelligent beings “out there” who are technologically way ahead of us, whydon’t they make contact with our scientific and technological institutions? Surely the greatresearch laboratories of the world would be the obvious landing places. Why do the supposedspaceships always land in strange places and why have they never communicated withscientists or engineers of repute? Surely they will have picked up the myriads ofelectromagnetic waves emanating from our radio and T.V. masts and our space probes. Whyno intelligent rational response to all the signals that have left planet earth? We need spend nofurther time on this topic.

To return to the challenging question. Why did the Deity put up such a vast system as thecosmos if the foreseeable culmination is a home for plants, animals and especially mankind?The Bible has the answer. Men and women are made in the image of God with the capacity toreason, choose, enjoy intellectual activity and especially to love. If we are made in His image,then going to all the trouble to provide such a remarkable place to live, becomes veryreasonable. Regrettably, the relationship between God and mankind was seriously upset,resulting in all that went wrong on planet earth. But that is another topic.

SEVEN

LIFE ON PLANET EARTH

If the origin of the physical universe and a planet such as earth seems amazing, thenbiological life itself and its manifestations in ever so many forms, ranging from tiny bacteriato plants and animals and finally mankind, is even more phenomenal. It is fair to say thatnever in the history of scientific endeavour has there been as much controversy and debate,ranging from mild differences to vituperative slander, as in the case of the explanations of theorigin of life and its various forms. To this very day the literate world is divided into manycamps on this issue. Needless to say, people often argue and debate without clearly definingtheir terms, and in the process more confusion than clarity is generated. We will concentrateon clearly describing the concepts we are dealing with in this essay.

The first question one has to face is the advent of biological life itself. The term life is sodifficult to define that most writers tend to avoid it. Credit must be given to Paul Davies formaking a serious attempt in his book The Cosmic Blueprint. We give the following generaldefinition: Life is the property of a system that is exceedingly complex, even in its verysimplest forms; the complexity being ordered and harmonised, unique in every individual aswell as in grouping, with an inherent functional purpose of its own, always derived from aliving predecessor and has the property of reproduction.

At one stage of history there was hope that the transition from living to non-living matterwould be a continuous one, but the advent of modern molecular biology has firmlyestablished that the gap between life and non-life is unimaginably enormous. Accepting thefact that an ingeniously designed planet is available to serve as a home for plants and animals,science faces the inevitable challenge to try and understand how life started. Bypassing all themyths and wild speculations that come up in history, one can seriously consider the firstattempt by the Russian scientist, Oparin, in 1924.

The picture is well-known today. An organic rich pool of water on planet earth containingall the necessary prebiotic (ie. before the advent of biological life) components such ascarbon, nitrogen, hydrogen etc. was subjected to lightning and ultraviolet rays. The impact oflightning discharges and ultraviolet radiation from the sun caused atoms to form groupsknown as amino acids. They had to be of the right atomic constitution with the atomsarranged in the correct spatial orientation. These groups came together to form the firstprotein molecules that in turn collected to form the first living cell. Thus life started off onplanet earth. All this had to happen in a chemical reducing atmosphere because in anoxidising atmosphere such as we have on planet earth today, the envisaged process could nottake place. Of course, if there was no free oxygen in the atmosphere, there could not havebeen any ozone and that in turn would mean that the ultraviolet dosage from the sun would beso lethal that the first living cell just would not have survived. We are all aware these dayshow important the ozone in our atmosphere is for our survival.

This picture requires a great deal of faith in the concept which we can call an unpurposedaccident. Some seventy years ago, relatively little was known of the biological building brickcalled a cell. One might think of a hundred huge airplanes packed with bricks, cement, sandand water, flying high and opening their latches to let all the materials come tumbling down.What are the chances that the cement, sand and water will mix in the right proportions duringdownward transit, then settle between bricks which fall one on top of the other, to eventuallyproduce a neat house with the right rooms to fulfil all the functions a home requires. This isthe kind of illustration one could use when the “life by accident” picture was first proposed.Today the situation is staggeri